Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
C James

Costa Concordia disaster

Recommended Posts

The Costa Concordia, one of the largest cruise liners on earth, over a thousand feet long and 114,000 tons, struck rocks off the Italian coast, then capsized and partially sank on Jan 13th.

 

Posted Image

 

 

 

12 are known dead so far, but there are still around 30 missing. It could have been vastly worse; there were over 4,000 people aboard.

 

I've been on quite a few cruises, including two on Costa lines so I'm quite interested in this story. Also, for those of you following "Circumnavigation", you'll recall me yammering on about AIS: a type of active radar transponder, which reports on a ship's ID, course, heading, etc.

 

AIS, in this case, allows us to see what really happened to the Concordia. It's already known that she, via reckless handling, hit rocks a couple of miles south of where she now lies. However, the press reports involving the time between that initial impact and the second grounding a couple of hours later are IMHO dead wrong.

 

They report that the ship was trying to reach the port near where it ended up. It wasn't. It's reported that the crew, knowing the ship was sinking, intentionally ran it aground. That didn't happen either.

 

The ship had a data recorder, like an airliner's black box. It was recovered from the wreck the next day, intact. Oddly, no data has been forthcoming from the authorities.

 

I'm troubled by the fact that, due to manifest faults of the captain (he caused the disaster with a reckless maneuver, then got himself ashore hours before the last of the passengers were saved) combined with some painful history (the Andrea Doria disaster, long a painful and embarrassing memory for Italians) and this being an Italian cruise line, with lawsuits sure to flood Italian courts, there is motive here for that "black box" data to be withheld or "lost".

 

Fortunately, we have AIS.

 

A reconstruction based on AIS data was made. To the best of my knowledge, this is accurate. It is also FAR better than you'll find in the media. It also shows a few huge surprises.

 

Okay, going back to the novel "Circumnavigation", it was mentioend that (and linked to) there are publicly availible AIS data pages on the 'net. There are also (Bridget was shown using one) subscription services that have far better data and tools. One of these is Qastor.

 

Here's a page showing a reconstruction of the disaster based on AIS data. They have both PDF and .WMV files for those who, like me, don't have flash. the .wmv files play just fine on windows media player, and I highly recommend them. The link I suggest is grounding costa concordia.wmv

There is also an interpolated one below it, but the first one is a bit easier and faster to view, and has no guesswork involved to fill in the data dropouts (there is a 16 second gap during some of the approach to impact in the actual AIS data). The data does, though, show the actual impact, where the ship hit the rocks at high speed during a turn to starboard. It ripped at least one massive (160 foot long) gash in the hull, and left a boulder the size of a small house sticking out of the hull.

 

The true mystery, though, is what happened after that? The AIS reveals what happened to the ship, and how to came to be aground a couple of hours later (a grounding that likely saved two thousand or more lives).

 

The ship was flooding; 5 compartments breached. (generally, losing three adjacent watertight compartments would likely result in sinking with that design). They lost power: that ship used 6 electrical generators to produce power for the ship systems and the ship's electrically driven engines. The generators failed within five minutes of impact. There is a backup generator, but it's not enough to provide propulsion. So, then, how did the captain get the ship to shore just barely in time, before she capsized (and would have gone down like a rock)? He didn't. As you watch that AIS video, watch how the ship behaves as it passes the port; it's velocity vector diverges from its centerline angle (in other words, it starts moving somewhat sideways). It then turns AWAY from shore, before slowly (at about a knot) moving towards shore sideways. That makes no sense for a powered maneuver, but, it makes total sense if the ship was dead in the water and the wond was from the north northeast at around 10 knots (which I've confirmed it was) The ship was drifting, sideways to the wind, and was blown ashore. (and that's something the media has yet to figure out... they are still reporting that the crew intentionally grounded the ship after the first impact, after turning back and trying to reach that little port, non of which happened.)

 

Here's why it's a huge scandal; this is the timeline of what happened, based on what is presently known. I think it speaks for itself. (And BTW, the delay in ordering the passengers into the lifeboats would have ensured around 2000 or more dead had the ship been just a bit slower drifting ashore; it was just about to capsize when it did).

 

And, ironically, I recently learned I've met Francesco Schettino, the Concordia's now-infamous captain, though far too briefly to have any impression. I didn't even remember until I saw this news item and saw the date. I was aboard that ship (Costa Atlantica) for that cruise, and on cruises I always go to what's called the captain's cocktail party: frequent cruisers are invited (so just you and about 800 total strangers, not exactly an intimate party). The captain and senior officers stand in a greeting line and greet the passengers with a quick handshake as they file in to get a free glass of champagne. (I'm very fond of free champagne.. or free drinks of any kind).

 

BTW, one more Circumnavigation tie-in: the scene where Trevor saw the shuttle launch from the sea was inspired by me seeing one from roughly that same position, on the deck of the Costa Fortuna, which had just sailed from Florida, bound for Italy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting news: at least one of the "black boxes" has been reported to be nonfunctional for weeks.

 

It's pretty clear that Costa lines knew of and approved of a close pass of the island, because their ships do such things fairly often. They cannot say they didn't know; on every Costa ship, near the main lobby, is a display showing the current positions of all other Costa ships. They are tracked in real time. The cruise line would know of any course deviations.

 

The prime cause is that the captain took manual control, and utterly disregarded safety, his instruments, common sense, and proceeded to make the turn to parallel the shore visually (at night). His navigation display would have shown the danger very clearly.

 

It's known for certain where the ship first hit: divers found wreckage there.

 

One lingering puzzle; the gash is on the port side. The ship, however, rolled over on its starboard side. The watertight bulkheads run side to side, so water entering one side could reach the other, but it's still odd that it would list away from the hole. This makes me wonder if the initial impact could have also holed the ship's hull elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite interesting. I would imagine that the holing and capsizing and then sinking of the Andrea Doria is formost on the Italian minds. My first thought when I saw this was "Geesh! Another one?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One lingering puzzle; the gash is on the port side. The ship, however, rolled over on its starboard side. The watertight bulkheads run side to side, so water entering one side could reach the other, but it's still odd that it would list away from the hole. This makes me wonder if the initial impact could have also holed the ship's hull elsewhere.

 

Did she not make a tight turn to port after she was holed? That would cause her to tip to the right, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One lingering puzzle; the gash is on the port side. The ship, however, rolled over on its starboard side. The watertight bulkheads run side to side, so water entering one side could reach the other, but it's still odd that it would list away from the hole. This makes me wonder if the initial impact could have also holed the ship's hull elsewhere"

 

From the description of what happened. A small list to port then a gigantic one to stardboard. This sounds like she lolled or lolling. This is mainly a design feature in roll on roll off ferries where the water enters the deck and some movement cause the water to rush to one side and then a reaction of the ship, causes all the water to rush in the opposite direction. The theory in this case is that a large amount of water entered and then rushed across a tranversal deck. The first rush(to port) resulted in a minor movement put it transferred its energy to a large rush in the opposite (to starboard). Given the pictures of the gash, there must have been a large amount of water entering into a number of so called watertight compartments.

 

However, as CJames has pointed out, the effect of the Law courts and the amount of compensation (USA courts) for a fit survivor asked for will result in the true reasons for the loss never coming to light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One further comment a Guardia di Finanza boat is what we call a customs cutter, a very fast small ship designed for anti smuggling operations. for those who read the timeline. They never use AIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite interesting. I would imagine that the holing and capsizing and then sinking of the Andrea Doria is formost on the Italian minds. My first thought when I saw this was "Geesh! Another one?"

 

You're right; the Andrea Doria was a huge blow to Italy; she was a source of pride and a symbol of their recovery from WWII. The loss of her, coupled with the shameful news that the first three lifeboats to get away were full of crew, was a national scandal. The captain and senior officers of the Doria, though, stayed at their posts and did their job.

 

The Concordia was the opposite is some ways; most of the junior staff did pretty well by some accounts (though some lied to passengers, put passengers in harm's way, and outright paniced), while the captain and senior officers behaved disgracefully. It's known that at least the captain and first officer fled their posts. Also, the Concordia wreck was caused by intentional reckless behavior; conning that ship visually, in the dark, right up against a perilous shore, is insane.

 

Another similarity; both ships lost about half their lifeboat capacity thanks to listing. In the case of Doria, this wasn't avoidable; the list began in moments. On Concordia, it happened because they waited for hours before launching the boats.

 

One thing I'd really like to know; why did the captain and senior bridge crew lie to the harbormaster (telling him repeatedly, over the course of at least an hour, that it was kjust an electrical problem) AFTER they had been told by their own engineers that the ship was definitely sinking and could not be saved?

 

BTW, here is an article that has a lot of good pics, including one of the currently best-selling T-shirt in Italy, which I think shows how a lot of Italians feel about this. She shirt says: "Vada a bordo, Cazzo!" That's what one of the coast guard officials told the captain when they learned he had gone ashore.

"Vada a bordo" means "go back aboard!" and cazzo, um, well, the English-speaking press is reporting it means "damn it". It doesn't. It's basically akin to our f-word, and in this context it's a vile insult.

Read the transcrips below and you'll see why the captain has the nickname "chicken of the sea".

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

The captain did not return to his ship.

 

Did she not make a tight turn to port after she was holed? That would cause her to tip to the right, wouldn't it?

 

There was no turn to port at all (the press are reporting that there was, to take the ship towards land, but they are in error. the ship actually turned to seaward), with the exception of a slight turn to port a moment after the initial collision. The island was on the ship's port side, and the turn after passing the port was to starboard (out to sea.) The ship lost all propulsive ability within a few minutes after the first impact; she was from then on going under just momentum and wind influence. It is very fortunate that she lost her engines as fast as she did; had they run for about two minutes more, and the same course steered, she'd have been further out to sea when she lost all steerageway and the wind began taking her towards shore. She'd have capsized in deeper water and gone down like a rock, with most of the passengers still aboard.

 

One further comment a Guardia di Finanza boat is what we call a customs cutter, a very fast small ship designed for anti smuggling operations. for those who read the timeline. They never use AIS.

 

Good point! They don't want people knowing where they are. :)

 

"One lingering puzzle; the gash is on the port side. The ship, however, rolled over on its starboard side. The watertight bulkheads run side to side, so water entering one side could reach the other, but it's still odd that it would list away from the hole. This makes me wonder if the initial impact could have also holed the ship's hull elsewhere"

From the description of what happened. A small list to port then a gigantic one to stardboard. This sounds like she lolled or lolling. This is mainly a design feature in roll on roll off ferries where the water enters the deck and some movement cause the water to rush to one side and then a reaction of the ship, causes all the water to rush in the opposite direction. The theory in this case is that a large amount of water entered and then rushed across a tranversal deck. The first rush(to port) resulted in a minor movement put it transferred its energy to a large rush in the opposite (to starboard). Given the pictures of the gash, there must have been a large amount of water entering into a number of so called watertight compartments.

 

However, as CJames has pointed out, the effect of the Law courts and the amount of compensation (USA courts) for a fit survivor asked for will result in the true reasons for the loss never coming to light.

 

Free surface effect?

 

Hrmm, you're right; the rush of water must have been enormous.

 

Supposedly, they are designed to "sink upright", so that a list disabling half the lifeboats won't happen. I assumed (wrongly) that this would mean they'd have a lateral bulkhead, running bow to stern, over the centerline, so counter-flooding could be done. From what little I can find, they don't seem to have this.

 

One thing that has always bothered me about the design of modern cruise ships; they are less stable than the liners of old. The height (ten stories or more) puts their center of motion rather high. I've always believed (wrongly, as it turned out) that the first of these to be lost would be lost due to losing power in a storm. I still think that's huge risk; they would be turned sideways to the sea by the wind, and with their roll moment, I don't think they'd last long in high seas.

 

I hope the truth comes out, so that the needed lessons can be learned. Otherwise, if it's whitewashed, the changed will likely be cosmetic, leaving people at greater risk.

 

I'm not at all fond of the lawsuit-happy culture, but in this case, I'm actually siding with the suing lawyers; those passengers (the ones that survived) had their lives put at terrible risk by an act of criminal reckless endangerment compounded by further criminal acts after the initial grounding (such as lying by the crew, the unconscionable delay in beginning to abandon ship, etc). If the testimony is correct, Costa was informed of the damage to the ship early on, and did precisely nothing (such as calling the Coast Guard). Costa, IMHO, deserves to be ripped a new one for this disaster.

 

BTW, I don't speak Italian, but here's a quote from the translation of the transcripts of the captain's testimony. If this is accurate, well, the words speak for themselves.

 

But he admitted he had made it to the shore aboard a motorised lifeboat which was difficult to steer and which may have run over people as they floundered in the water.

"It might even be that some people's heads were hit," he told prosecutors, in La Repubblica reported.

 

 

That's the captain being quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly, they are designed to "sink upright", so that a list disabling half the lifeboats won't happen. I assumed (wrongly) that this would mean they'd have a lateral bulkhead, running bow to stern, over the centerline, so counter-flooding could be done. From what little I can find, they don't seem to have this.

 

One thing that has always bothered me about the design of modern cruise ships; they are less stable than the liners of old. The height (ten stories or more) puts their center of motion rather high. I've always believed (wrongly, as it turned out) that the first of these to be lost would be lost due to losing power in a storm. I still think that's huge risk; they would be turned sideways to the sea by the wind, and with their roll moment, I don't think they'd last long in high seas.

 

 

Tankers have longitudual blaffles which stop the fluid travelling across the ship, and RO on Ro off ferry designed for deep water were fitted with 2 feet high longitudual walls on the car deck to stop foot high water. Cruise ships should have enough bulkheads going bow to stern, to stop this happening, but it depends on how much water came in. A long gash in the side is the worst, as generallythere is no double hull in this part.

 

Modern cruise/liners are taller than the classic 1930, but 1930 liner had their upper decks made of steel and had heavy wooden furniture/fittings. Modern cruise liners have alumimum superstructure and light plastic furniture and bulkhead coverings. The stability requirement has in general stayed the same since the 1930s, and modern ships should have the same centre of mass(gravity), moment of inertia and righting moments(forces). The change is in the huge increase in windage. with that increase area you cannot avoid it. When a ship is moving there is not a problem as stability is generated by the movement of the ship through the water, and an additional stability is provided by the stabiliser which can be used to reduce roll in the ship and provide an offset to the angle of the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend sent me what he assures me is a direct quote from Winston Churchill. He had taken a cruise on an Italian liner. When asked why an Italian rather than a British liner, he replied that on the Italian liner, the food was superb, the service impeccable, and, in the event of an emergency, there would be none of that women and chilren first nonsense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no turn to port at all (the press are reporting that there was, to take the ship towards land, but they are in error. the ship actually turned to seaward), with the exception of a slight turn to port a moment after the initial collision. The island was on the ship's port side, and the turn after passing the port was to starboard (out to sea.) The ship lost all propulsive ability within a few minutes after the first impact; she was from then on going under just momentum and wind influence. It is very fortunate that she lost her engines as fast as she did; had they run for about two minutes more, and the same course steered, she'd have been further out to sea when she lost all steerageway and the wind began taking her towards shore. She'd have capsized in deeper water and gone down like a rock, with most of the passengers still aboard.

 

I'm puzzled CJ. The ship was sailing roughly NNW alongside the island when she struck. She then heads roughly NNE? Then she gets blown back to the island by wind alone? But the pics I've seen show her prow pointing southwards alongside the island - so she must have turned around. Could the wind have done this?

 

Modern cruise/liners are taller than the classic 1930, but 1930 liner had their upper decks made of steel and had heavy wooden furniture/fittings. Modern cruise liners have alumimum superstructure and light plastic furniture and bulkhead coverings. The stability requirement has in general stayed the same since the 1930s, and modern ships should have the same centre of mass(gravity), moment of inertia and righting moments(forces). The change is in the huge increase in windage. with that increase area you cannot avoid it. When a ship is moving there is not a problem as stability is generated by the movement of the ship through the water, and an additional stability is provided by the stabiliser which can be used to reduce roll in the ship and provide an offset to the angle of the ship.

 

Surely she was just a cruise ship. Not a liner. I'm not a naval architect but I believe there is an important difference. A liner costs about 40% more than a cruise ship because it is much stronger and more seaworthy. E.g Cunard Queen Victoria is a liner for transatlantic crossings - needed to cope with very rough Atlantic storms. Her sister ship Queen Elizabeth, however, is just a cruise ship - you wouldn't want to be out in a rough storm in that baby.

 

Coupla Qs

1. how soon after boarding was lifeboat drill in your experience?

2. why didn't the ship have a location transmitter beacon activated - C4 doc this week showed Italian search + rescue cockpit footage and the pilots were circling around in the dark looking for the ship with their infra red cameras begfore it was eventually located

3. re compensation - aren't the passengers basically stuffed by the contract terms they will have entered into when booking their tickets?

4. if not how can the US courts get jurisdiction - Italian ship - sinks in Italy

 

Guess you won't be rushing to cruise again on Costa anytime soon ... Or indeed any Italian line. Ever again Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm puzzled CJ. The ship was sailing roughly NNW alongside the island when she struck. She then heads roughly NNE? Then she gets blown back to the island by wind alone? But the pics I've seen show her prow pointing southwards alongside the island - so she must have turned around. Could the wind have done this?

 

YES. When she hit the rockshe loss all power, travelled on( from momentum) turning to North East stopped, and was blown back.

 

 

 

Surely she was just a cruise ship. Not a liner. I'm not a naval architect but I believe there is an important difference. A liner costs about 40% more than a cruise ship because it is much stronger and more seaworthy. E.g Cunard Queen Victoria is a liner for transatlantic crossings - needed to cope with very rough Atlantic storms. Her sister ship Queen Elizabeth, however, is just a cruise ship - you wouldn't want to be out in a rough storm in that baby.

 

The same construction rules(laws) apply to liners and cruise ships, that is why I grouped them together. Apart from size, the Queen Elizabeth should be the same as Queen Victoria.

 

 

Coupla Qs

1. how soon after boarding was lifeboat drill in your experience?

Do not Know, the law says within 24 hours.

 

2. why didn't the ship have a location transmitter beacon activated - C4 doc this week showed Italian search + rescue cockpit footage and the pilots were circling around in the dark looking for the ship with their infra red cameras begfore it was eventually located.

AIS which is a legal requirement, was reporting the ships position(within 10m) to everybody, until two hours after running aground. I think it was the case that the helicopters thought she was afloat in the sea not on the sea bed within 200yards of the land.

 

3. re compensation - aren't the passengers basically stuffed by the contract terms they will have entered into when booking their tickets?

The company is safe from acts of gods, but no contract protects against gross negilgence.

 

4. if not how can the US courts get jurisdiction - Italian ship - sinks in Italy

This is the unfairness of USA law and their law courts. man if you use an USA owned company in UK for entirely UK business, use a USA goods unilaterally defned as USA property(design built,sold, used, own in UK), you are liable for criminal and civil USA law.

 

Guess you won't be rushing to cruise again on Costa anytime soon ... Or indeed any Italian line. Ever again Posted Image

 

I would, there are worst carrier than Italin cruise ships

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Red

 

YES. When she hit the rockshe loss all power, travelled on( from momentum) turning to North East stopped, and was blown back.

 

I'm just surprised that the ship could have been turned through 180 degrees by the wind. Does the AIS data show the ship's orientation - or has that been assumed?

 

The same construction rules(laws) apply to liners and cruise ships, that is why I grouped them together. Apart from size, the Queen Elizabeth should be the same as Queen Victoria.

 

My mistake. Queen Mary 2 is the liner (stronger hull apparently)

 

1. how soon after boarding was lifeboat drill in your experience?

Do not Know, the law says within 24 hours.

 

According to the C4 doc passengers were picked up at various points along the route and some had had no instruction which must have added to the panic and confusion.

 

I would, there are worst carrier than Italin cruise ships

 

I think I'll stick to dry land. Now where did I put that Poseidon Adventure video ....

 

There's now a wiki webpage on the wreck

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia_disaster

 

According to this:

- two data recorders have been recovered (a 3rd is still underwater) plus hard drives containing additional data have been recovered from the ship's control panel. Surely these can't all go "missing" :)

- passengers reported that "the Titanic theme "My Heart Will Go On", sung by Céline Dion, was playing in a restaurant when the ship hit the rock". Oh joy :)

Edited by Zombie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh joy that's some way to celebrate titanic 100th anniversary of its sinking ...

 

don't tell celine that her song was attributed with the disaster

 

the real disaster is the captain, the crew, the panic and disorder, how the ship was run in terms of deviating from acceptable standards ... like not carrying out the lifeboat drills ... steering the ship close to rocks ... as proved by videos of the ship going through that same spot during other cruises .... partying having higher priority than safety ... the mentality\behavior exhibited by the captain ... I wonder if they tested him for drugs? ... only one coast guard ship responding?

 

this is how titanic it was ... the many errors ... that add up to its sinking

 

according to seconds from disaster ... the key thing to titanics doom ... an officer had locked away the binoculars and left the shift with the key at their last stop ... the radio man who got angry because of his ears getting blasted rather than being concerned about iceberg warnings ... the sense of arrogance of unsinkable belief ... the ignoring of stopping for the night ... perhaps no one told the captain that the lookouts had no binoculars ... otherwise he would have ordered the cabinet lock broken into n given the lookouts their googles

 

funny to compare this to the doria ... that was a collision with another ship ... but of course its how it sank

... I didn't find any blow by blow info of how it sank ... but at least I think it didn't have titanic or concordia human errors

 

http://en.wikipedia....cordia_disaster

 

According to this:

- two data recorders have been recovered (a 3rd is still underwater) plus hard drives containing additional data have been recovered from the ship's control panel. Surely these can't all go "missing" Posted Image

- passengers reported that "the Titanic theme "My Heart Will Go On", sung by Céline Dion, was playing in a restaurant when the ship hit the rock". Oh joy Posted Image

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have choosen this utube item as it comes from a reputable source( QPS) and has all the publically available data. The track data is exactly as available on my cheap (free) internet source at 6:00 after grounding. The heading data given,I believe is the True heading from the Concordia. The presentation shows how the ship rapidly lost speed after hiting rock and reduce speed below 5knots. With loss of dirrectional control~(inherent due to length of ship and speed) she heads into the wind ie NE. At some point, the ship is blown such she turns to starboard (clockwise) towards the east and the wind blows her broadside and down wind. This is consistent with the effect on all sizes of boat/ships. The presentations which show her actually turning to port (anticlockwise) is pure fantasy by some misguided graphic artist.

 

The basic regulation says you must report POSITION, speed, and heading other the VHF AIS system more often than 10seconds(speed denpendant)[Large vessel only]. I believe in this case it was true heading reported, however apparent heading is acceptable. True heading is angle that ship makes with north. apparent is angle ship's track makes with north.

 

Edited by Red_A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks more like the ship was fish tailing like a rear wheel drive car in snow.

Since the ship is almost 1000 ft long ... he needs to be at least 500 yd away from the cost

his excuse of 300 yd is lame especially if he says 150yd is sufficient

does the ship have accurate sonar to get an idea of how the cost looks like?

if it didn't then 500yd should have been the safe distance.

The news showed that if he stayed in the accepted shipping lanes then this accident would never have happen.

 

 

oh a small story related to doria, there is a privately amature built sub thats ship wreck in NYC ... the guy was building it to savage the dora. He planned to patch up the side of the ship and blow air to raise it. Well, the sub was too heavy to lift into the water. So they removed the ballast tanks and then told the crane operator to not release the sub into the water until they reinstalll the tanks

guess what ... it was released lol and then the sub sank and over the years drifted to its current rotting position and stayed there for 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks more like the ship was fish tailing like a rear wheel drive car in snow.

Since the ship is almost 1000 ft long ... he needs to be at least 500 yd away from the cost

his excuse of 300 yd is lame especially if he says 150yd is sufficient

does the ship have accurate sonar to get an idea of how the cost looks like?

if it didn't then 500yd should have been the safe distance.

The news showed that if he stayed in the accepted shipping lanes then this accident would never have happen.

 

 

Your description of fish tailing is exactly right. The big mistake in the captains part was the angle of approach to the shore. A good rule of thumb is that it takes a ship of that nature 2 miles to stop and 1 mile to turn. The previous example of august show a shallow angle of approach, lining up the ship to go parrellel to the shore. This time the angle is too big and the ship was doomed a mile out as the momentum would take the ship into the shore. So roughly 5 ship lengths away(5000feet ~1 mile), the depth is 300 feet deep, one ship length away it is 300feet, half a ship length away it is 150feet. So at bow, 0 feet, half way along 150feet, at stern 300feet.

 

As for echo sounders, you pays your money and yous get want you pay for. There are sonars which can look a mile ahead and show the profile of the sea bed. Whether she had such a system , and was it operating, I do not know, but it is said that all the warning devices indicating change in course, collision and grounding had been turned off. Personally, even if she had such a sonar, and it was operating, I do not think it would have helped, as by the time it took to figure out what was happening it would be too late. Thinking time, one minute, distance 1/4 mile.

 

PLUG the reason QPS has produced the video shown, is that they harvest AIS data from the web, and use it to produce warning software showing the predicted path of ships, and then sell it as collison avoidance and grounding avoidance systems. What the video shows is the standard navigation/chart disaplay that the captain would have on his bridge. More information is available, http://www.qps.nl/display/qastor/2012/01/17/20120117_stranding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a look the distance between the island and the land is 8 miles.

He really should have steered the ship within 1 to 4 miles of the land if you are suppose to adhere to shipping lanes.

Hence yield to the right. Was he driving british? Yield to the left?

 

Now a days, do captains really plot courses ... I though they had helms man and navigators?

So there wasn't a course warning ... with that one mile rule of thumb? when the captain plotted?

or did he override the safety?

 

Gosh his statement on TV before his arrest sure did sound like he didn't read navigation for dummies?

 

lol, I thought the rule of thumb was for tankers? but i guess from your share ...

a tanker would always stay in the deepest part in the lane and go real slow with no sharp turns like that

 

it seems the captain set the course ... and went for party dinner ... leaving no one qualified to man the ship

 

http://www.qps.nl/do...ncordia%202.jpg

 

the news must have showed the rock that the captain claimed he was 300yd away but really its like 150yd from the land

with an added lame excuse ... that rock wasn't on the chart? like who is that crazy to drive close to land?

did they do a drug test on the captain when he got arrested?

 

the computers shouldn't allow this course? wasn't the ship fighting a current? hence the one mile rule is very wise rule indeed

 

 

A good rule of thumb is that it takes a ship of that nature 2 miles to stop and 1 mile to turn.

 

Here is some superstition ... Titanic sank on tax day ... the Concordia sank on Friday 13th - Freddy Kruger Day!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rule of thumb for a supertanker is 2.5 miles to turn and 5 miles to stop

 

In my view there is no problem with a ship of that nature going close to shore, going alone the coast, but you do not go at 90 degrees to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you hate to learn the Titanic fate was a result from a challenge?

 

For Titanic it was who can make the best time across the Atlantic. A unofficial race between Titanic n Olympic.

 

For the two rival Italian Captains its who can get closer to the island with a Cruise Ship!!

 

How daff can they be? To repeat a challenge. This kind of proof should get the other Captain fired as well.

Putting passengers safety at risk.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/02/f-fifth-estate-concordia.html

The dangerous manoeuvrethat caused theCosta Concordia cruise ship to crash into rocks off the shore of the Italian island of Giglio last month was likely the result of a rivalry between its captain and that of another ship to see who could get closest to the island when sounding the customary salute that vessels give when passing shore.

Concordia's captain, Francesco Schettino, had sent an email just weeks before the Jan. 13 disaster to another captain who had managed to sound his ship's horn from closer than the eight kilometres considered safe.

In that email, Schettino vowed to pull the same stunt and do it better, according to Italian investigative journalist Carlo Bonini, one of several people interviewed in a special report on the wreck of the Concordia that will air Friday night on The Fifth Estate.

"So, I think it was … this sort of a challenge among captains, a sort of a secret challenge among captains," Bonini told the Fifth Estate's Bob McKeown.

Bonini learned of the captain's boast while investigating the events that led up to the running aground of the Concordia, which resulted in the deaths of at least 17 of the 4,200 crew and passengers on board (another 16 people are still missing and presumed dead)

 

http://www.titanic-whitestarships.com/TandOWSS%20FAQ.htm#Lifeboats

Another Titanic related website author states that he believes that Captain Smith had in fact been influenced by Bruce Ismay to "speed up" not necessarily in order for Titanic set a crossing record, but to beat theOlympic's crossing record. (Titanic's sister ship) He states that it would have made sense to want to impress the public and show that White Star was producing new technologically advanced ships that could even out perform the best of their current fleet.

This could be quite true, but the question here is did Ismay truly "order" Captain Smith to do this, and would an experienced shipmaster like Edward Smith deliberately put his ship in harm's way by speeding through an ice field know to contain icebergs.

http://www.titanicattraction.com/titanic-biographies-december.php

During the voyage, Ismay was overheard as he suggested to Captain Smith that, despite warnings of ice in the vicinity, Titanic should set a speed record for crossing the Atlantic. He may have hoped for headlines heralding the accomplishment in major newspapers throughout the world.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following video (in French, sorry) is interesting to see to show the progress of the sinking of the passenger point of view.

http://www.letelegramme.com/ig/generales/france-monde/europe/costa-concordia-une-famille-a-filme-de-l-interieur-la-soiree-du-naufrage-27-01-2012-1580610.php

In summary:

Initially, staff hotelier is also panicked (as passengers), caused by striking the rock.

Moment of hesitation inside the restaurant, with a staff that invites passengers to return to their cabins.

Power failure and at the same time reassuring announcement of the ship's deck to the attention of staff and passengers for their stated that there is no need to worry.

 

In my opinion, the ship stops at that point on a rocky area (where he is now), and it is then that the evacuation of the ship is slowly starting.

As you can see, he did not really lying at the beginning of the evacuation, he "looks" only one side.

 

For more events, we will not see on the video:

More the waves clap on the hull exposed, more the ship leans on the other side, making the end is lying on one side the boat.

Remember that the ship's bottom is not flat, so just a slight slope so that the ship trapped by rocks looks more and more on one side.

 

From personal experience I can tell you indicated that you see regularly unfortunately large vessels approached too close to shore, malgrés the vigilance of the authorities and calls to order.

 

Most recently, France has a ship stranded on a nature reserve because the captain decided to leave a port just before a big storm, is sheltered behind a party island, but its anchor did not hold the and suddenly it began to storm drifted without its engines can not prevent the completion of his course on a beach ...

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/TK_Bremen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the media hasn't honed in on the fact the there is international law regarding disasters like this. The Athens Convention of 1974 was created for just in this case.

 

I heard a Maritime Lawyer speaking of this the other day. He would like to meet the judge who has the jurisdiction to over rule international law signed on by all the countries including the US and Italy.

 

Pay special attention to Articles 3, 7 and 8. Essentially if you die, do to negligence (the lawyer said 'gross negligence' is an American spin word which essentially means negligence) you get 700,000 francs. You don't die, you can claim up to 12,500 francs. I imagine that only the deceased will see any 700,000 francs.

 

Now here is the scary thing, how much is a franc?

 

The franc mentioned in this Convention shall be deemed to refer to a unit consisting of 65.5 milligrams of gold of millesimal fineness 900.

 

Price per oz of Gold = $1723.50 US

1 oz = 28349.52 mg

1 mg = 0.000035273 oz.

1 mg of gold = $0.0607930155 US

1 franc = $3.98194251525 US

 

700,000 francs = $2,787,359.76 US

 

With only 23 dead and the rest restricted on getting possibly only up to $49,774.28 each, I don't foresee anyone going broke over these numbers.

 

The lawyer suggests sue away, but the amount you will lose in the end will far exceed the 50 grand.

 

This has been signed by every passenger of a cruise line in their contract with their particular cruise line since 1974 :( .

 

I also imagine this is why Carnival/Costa have put out an offer of $70,000 per person settlement. Sadly, there is no other option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following video (in French, sorry) is interesting to see to show the progress of the sinking of the passenger point of view.

http://www.letelegra...012-1580610.php

In summary:

Initially, staff hotelier is also panicked (as passengers), caused by striking the rock.

Moment of hesitation inside the restaurant, with a staff that invites passengers to return to their cabins.

Power failure and at the same time reassuring announcement of the ship's deck to the attention of staff and passengers for their stated that there is no need to worry.

 

In my opinion, the ship stops at that point on a rocky area (where he is now), and it is then that the evacuation of the ship is slowly starting.

As you can see, he did not really lying at the beginning of the evacuation, he "looks" only one side.

 

For more events, we will not see on the video:

More the waves clap on the hull exposed, more the ship leans on the other side, making the end is lying on one side the boat.

Remember that the ship's bottom is not flat, so just a slight slope so that the ship trapped by rocks looks more and more on one side.

 

From personal experience I can tell you indicated that you see regularly unfortunately large vessels approached too close to shore, malgrés the vigilance of the authorities and calls to order.

 

Most recently, France has a ship stranded on a nature reserve because the captain decided to leave a port just before a big storm, is sheltered behind a party island, but its anchor did not hold the and suddenly it began to storm drifted without its engines can not prevent the completion of his course on a beach ...

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/TK_Bremen

 

Welcome to the forums!!!!!

 

I'm not surprised that there was panic amongst the cruise staff; they weren't receiving instruction from the bridge. Some of them (who deserve great credit) began the evacuation before it was ordered, which probably saved lives.

 

The rule of thumb for a supertanker is 2.5 miles to turn and 5 miles to stop

 

In my view there is no problem with a ship of that nature going close to shore, going alone the coast, but you do not go at 90 degrees to it.

 

That's what I was thinking too; approaching at 90 degrees at 15 knots... yipes!

I took a look the distance between the island and the land is 8 miles.

He really should have steered the ship within 1 to 4 miles of the land if you are suppose to adhere to shipping lanes.

Hence yield to the right. Was he driving british? Yield to the left?

 

Now a days, do captains really plot courses ... I though they had helms man and navigators?

So there wasn't a course warning ... with that one mile rule of thumb? when the captain plotted?

or did he override the safety?

 

I've been on the bridge of several cruise ships (they do bridge tours, though not at sea anymore) including the Costa Atlantica (whose captain at the time was Shinetto, the Costa Concordia's captain). They have navigation displays that show navigation maps and plot the ship's position. The captain must have disregarded the chart data entirely, and then began his turn too late. All the info released so far indicates that he was at the helm, conning the ship visually, at night, which in itself is nuts that close to danger.

 

I'm surprised the media hasn't honed in on the fact the there is international law regarding disasters like this. The Athens Convention of 1974 was created for just in this case.

 

I heard a Maritime Lawyer speaking of this the other day. He would like to meet the judge who has the jurisdiction to over rule international law signed on by all the countries including the US and Italy.

 

Pay special attention to Articles 3, 7 and 8. Essentially if you die, do to negligence (the lawyer said 'gross negligence' is an American spin word which essentially means negligence) you get 700,000 francs. You don't die, you can claim up to 12,500 francs. I imagine that only the deceased will see any 700,000 francs.

 

Now here is the scary thing, how much is a franc?

 

 

 

Price per oz of Gold = $1723.50 US

1 oz = 28349.52 mg

1 mg = 0.000035273 oz.

1 mg of gold = $0.0607930155 US

1 franc = $3.98194251525 US

 

700,000 francs = $2,787,359.76 US

 

With only 23 dead and the rest restricted on getting possibly only up to $49,774.28 each, I don't foresee anyone going broke over these numbers.

 

The lawyer suggests sue away, but the amount you will lose in the end will far exceed the 50 grand.

 

This has been signed by every passenger of a cruise line in their contract with their particular cruise line since 1974 Posted Image .

 

I also imagine this is why Carnival/Costa have put out an offer of $70,000 per person settlement. Sadly, there is no other option.

 

Great points, but I'm astounded that a maritime lawyer didn't know that that Athens Convention has no legal impact in the US, because the US is not a signatory to it. Canada isn't a signatory either, but has incorporated the principals of it into its law. (the US has not).

 

I'm reminded of something I read long ago, that had occured back in the latter years of the cold war. A group of US buisnessmen sued the Soviet Union over some kind of dispute. I can't recall what, but it related to something inside the Soviet Union, maybe the Soviets not paying for a shipment of something. The buisnessmen won in court, but the Soviets decided to just ignore it, saying the court had no jurisdiction. As a result, the court's judgement was enforced by seizing a Soviet freighter.

 

I';ve signed quite a few cruise contracts, and they do vary a bit, though not a lot. The issue with contracts is they are often not binding in the case of clearly criminal conduct by one of the parties, and the captain's actions (especially his denials to the harbormaster that the ship was in serous trouble, and the huge delay in evacuating) rise to the level of criminal misconduct.

 

My wild guess is the US lawsuit has at least a chance. How much of a chance, I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently, the company owning the ship offers all travelers a compensation of 14,000 euros for "closing the incident" and reimbursement of all medical expenses and travel immediately to the victims and their families.

 

Since the tragedy happened in Italy, and that most victims are European, the company has Bassée ESSENTIALLY on European law for the written agreement.

 

You should know that the French law for example does not at all "class action" in the U.S., and go to trial will last for years for a result not necessarily more advantageous because many european countries are signatories of the Treaty of Athens.

 

Please note that the amount offered varies from 11,000 to 14,000 euros for the victims (between 14,476 and 18,424 U.S. dollars), therefore it is far from $ 50,000...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like that's only enough to ship the body and pay for burial

with people screaming my ____ is worth more than that

 

I also imagine this is why Carnival/Costa have put out an offer of $70,000 per person settlement. Sadly, there is no other option.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it still looks like a Titanic senerio ... all we need is two guys up in the crows nest to scream boulder port side dead ahead

 

its like the captain didn't really study the maps n data ... he assumed

 

Was the rival competition suppose to be done in the dark?

Its not that he did his turn late ... he didn't know there was a third rock

he didn't check sonar ... he did something you should do during the day time

 

doesn't he get .... your in trouble no matter what time of day you do it

he just did it when none of the passengers would be witnesses to his crime

 

I've been on the bridge of several cruise ships (they do bridge tours, though not at sea anymore) including the Costa Atlantica (whose captain at the time was Shinetto, the Costa Concordia's captain). They have navigation displays that show navigation maps and plot the ship's position. The captain must have disregarded the chart data entirely, and then began his turn too late. All the info released so far indicates that he was at the helm, conning the ship visually, at night, which in itself is nuts that close to danger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Privacy Policy can be found here. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..